Generalizations have their place. A big problem many have with right-wing libertarians is that, unlike other political philosophies, libertarianism seems more like an elaborate, and status-reinforcing, justification for one's own socioeconomic position.
To believe otherwise -- i.e., to believe that merit is largely a fiction, albeit a highly adaptive one -- would mean giving up far too much.
They would need empathy to do that, or at least a basic understanding of human nature. That's pretty unlikely, given that they seem to lack the hardware for that.
> Someone who has known him for more than a decade said, “He’s very cerebral, and I’m not sure how much value he places on the more intimate human emotions. I’ve never seen him express them. It’s certainly not the most developed aspect of his personality.” The friend added, “There are some irreconcilable elements that remain unreconciled in him”—a reference to Thiel’s being both Christian and gay, two facts that get no mention in his public utterances and are barely acknowledged in his private conversations. Though he is known for his competitiveness, he has an equally pronounced aversion to conflict. As chief executive of PayPal, which counted its users with a “world domination index,” Thiel avoided the personal friction that comes with managing people by delegating those responsibilities. Similarly, he hired from a small pool of like-minded friends, because “figuring out how well people work together would have been really difficult.”
> Thiel liked to quote Margaret Thatcher: “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women.”
You are mistaking what he is saying. People say things like "France's gold", but France doesn't have gold. Only the individuals who also identify themselves as French, or are determined to be French by law, do.
This is what happens whenever I debate "libertarians". I mention overarching tendencies, only to get replies about fine logic minutiae. I'm guessing obsession with details, and blindness to the big picture is also a trait of Ayn Rand fans.
yeah-- those damn details... always an annoying part of any argument. Also, I like how you imply that you can't both understand the "big picture" and care about the details. To me, it seems like the only way to understand anything. If you aren't conversant with the details of what you think, do you really understand what you're talking about?
Perhaps an important detail, then: Thatcher's quote was actually "And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
... as if families, themselves, weren't each a kind of small society.
Indeed. I'd even argue that France doesn't actually exist. People exist. The Earth exists. Objects exist. But "France" is just a concept and a set of traditions that a (rather large) number of people choose to talk about and believe in. But it has no independent existance. You cannot see France from space. If everyone's minds were wiped tonight and then we woke up tomorrow and got out of bed it would be as if France didn't exist. Beds would still exist. Food would still exist, our bodies, buildings, vehicles, etc.
Also the idea that only nation states are sovereign could be argued to be a combination of a benign constructive social conceit AND also a cognitive tool designed by elites to control the masses. Both of these things can be true at the same time. I'm not arguing that anarchy is a good thing. But something like it IS the natural state of affairs, physically speaking. And the only reason people tend to prefer something other than anarchy is when they see the relative benefits. But the alternatives to anarchy (families, tribes, cities, nations) are things we choose to do, we choose to engage in, and choose to go along with. Just as millions and perhaps billions of people choose to go along with the idea that France exists and is a sovereign entity. But let's never forget this is only true to the extent that enough (of the right) people want it to be true. And that can change.
The day a libertarian realizes the world is not comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors is the day they get a clue
Very few, if any, libertarians believe that "the world is comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors." Some consequentialist libertarians whose arguments for the libertarian position are rooted in economics might almost argue that, but deontological libertarians hold to libertarian principles because they believe that the initiation of force or fraud is simply immoral.
And quite a few of us hold to libertarian positions because we've seen the damage caused by government.
> And quite a few of us hold to libertarian positions because we've seen the damage caused by government.
But you don't see the good things done by government? And you don't see the damage caused by businesses and private individuals independently from and/or in the absence of government? See, this is the flaw I think a lot of mono-ideological folks have: the cherry picking of which good things to weigh most and/or which bad things to ignore. I personally resonate with a lot of libertarian positions. But I also resonate with a lot of socialist positions, and government-is-good positions. (I think) I'm pragmatic. I'd almost not trust someone who isn't pragmatic.
But you don't see the good things done by government?
Yes, and there's an important point about that... being opposed to "government" does not necessarily mean being opposed to all communal / collective action. It's just that governments are unique institutions in that they reserve for themselves a virtual monopoly on the use of force, and most of what they do is not optional. I believe that most of the good part of what comes from government as we know it today can be achieved through people choosing, voluntarily, to work together. The difference would be that the various communes and collectives that libertarians talk about, would not be able to mandate participation at the point of a gun barrel.
And you don't see the damage caused by businesses and private individuals independently from and/or in the absence of government?
I see certain individuals and/or businesses causing harm even in the face of government as we know it today. I'm not convinced that the situation would be considerably worse under a libertarian model, and - more to the point - I believe that freedom is it's own end, and justifies whatever negative consequences arise from it.
I guess it's hard to explain to anybody who isn't a libertarian, but people like us feel the whole "live free or die" thing, and just absolutely recoil at being denied the freedom to live without the constant interjection of coercive force / aggression into our lives. It's probably partly genetic or something...
Conservatives want more government when it comes to the military, the drug war, opposing abortion, restricting civil liberties (everything the ACLU does), "tough on crime" laws, immigration, Israel...
The day a believer in government realizes that he's voting in an elaborate charade where the Coke and Pepsi parties both deliver pretty much identical taxing, spending, and war making, and the ones who win every election are the politicians and government employees is the day the get a clue.
The true believers from all of the political philosophies are disappointed with the two party system, not just libertarians. I've heard similar Coke and Pepsi thoughts from socialists, environmentalists, anarchists, christian right, Tea Partiers, Ron Paul'ites, Ralph Nader'ites, etc.
To believe otherwise -- i.e., to believe that merit is largely a fiction, albeit a highly adaptive one -- would mean giving up far too much.